Basically the way windows vista allocates memory is by sharing a decent sum of your physical ram w/ your video card... i have a GeForce 8600 GT 256mb ddr3, it shows in properties as 1gb, 256vram / 768 shared... Basically, it learns to use what you give it... you might be susceptible to occasional slow downs where it might take a milisecond for the window to drag or something like that...but it should work. However, don't bother using Dreamscene until you can get more memory, it'll eat up your ram like you won't believe... i currently have 2gb pc2-5300, typically i have about 40%-50% physical memory in use by windows and misc. background apps... i've only seen it go as high as maybe 70%... get another gig and you should be pleasently surprised... it's all about finding the bottleneck, and w/ vista, you want to eliminate them for the best experience possible. -- Night
nice to see some guys can actually USE "dreamscene". I installed it succesfully some 5 times and that is it. It does not show in the installed programs. Furthermore Vista keeps telling me there is one upgrade available. I gave up on dreamscene. François -- f_vo
f_vo;588525 Wrote: > nice to see some guys can actually USE "dreamscene". I installed it > succesfully some 5 times and that is it. It does not show in the > installed programs. Furthermore Vista keeps telling me there is one > upgrade available. I gave up on dreamscene. > > François I assume you using Ultimate if you installed it "successfuly"? That's the only version that Dreamscene will work in. Also, Dreamscene does NOT show up in the Programs menu. It shows up under Display Properties (right-click on the Desktop) where you choose what Dreamscene to show, much like wallpaper. Almost all Dreamscenes that are available from Stardock (you have to install Dreamscapes first for them to work) are user made and therefore vary as far as resource usage. I've noticed some are quite conservative, while others hog both the RAM and CPU. Even with 4GB of RAM, I've had some crash on me. Don't look to Microsoft for much support with Dreamscenes...they've pretty much left all that to Stardock. -- bistro intel q6600 cpu @ 3.2ghz - evga nforce 680i sli mobo - 4gb ocz reaper pc2-8500 - vista ultimate 64-bit two evga 8800 gts 320mb in sli - x-fi fatal1ty platinum champion soundcard harddrives: 150gb wd raptor and two 74gb wd raptors, 500gb wd sata pioneer 2810 dual layer sata dvd/cd writer - sony dual layer ide dvd/cd writer antec truepower quattro 850w psu - antec p160 pc case - viewsonic 19\" va912b lcd monitor
Night;588434 Wrote: > Basically the way windows vista allocates memory is by sharing a decent > sum of your physical ram w/ your video card... i have a GeForce 8600 GT > 256mb ddr3, it shows in properties as 1gb, 256vram / 768 shared... Huh? No. No. This has nothing to do with Vista, and everything to do with both your BIOS allocation for shared memory and your video drivers. This is not, I repeat NOT, something that the Vista operating system is doing. The reason that Vista performs better with more physical memory is a combination of lots of bloat and a VM that is geared towards more RAM. This has been the trend of every operating system since the dawn of operating systems - though Microsoft is well known for being particularly guilty of this. Let's not forget OSX, in all fairness, too. -- ltwally
